Overleaf vs Stirling-PDF
| Tagline | Self-hosted collaborative LaTeX editor for academic writing and publishing | Locally hosted web app for merging, splitting, converting, and OCR-ing PDFs |
| Category | Notes & Knowledge Base | Notes & Knowledge Base |
| Replaces | Notion, Confluence | Notion, Confluence |
| GitHub stars | 18k | 81k |
| Language | Ruby | Docker |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 4/5 Involved | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose | Docker Docker Compose |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | today | today |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Overleaf
- Track changes and full Git integration are cloud-only (paid) features not available in the Community Edition.
- No built-in reference manager; requires manual BibTeX or integration with Zotero/Mendeley.
- Admin panel is minimal; user and quota management requires direct database access.
- Requires a non-trivial server (2+ CPU, 4 GB RAM) for a comfortable multi-user compile experience.
Stirling-PDF
- Not a document-management or collaboration tool — purely a PDF processing utility.
- Advanced features like user auth and SSO require the paid Stirling-PDF Pro license.
- No document storage or versioning; files must be uploaded and downloaded manually each session.
- OCR accuracy depends on Tesseract language packs installed in the container.
Bottom line
Choose Stirling-PDF if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Stirling-PDF for the larger community and ecosystem. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Overleaf
Self-hosted collaborative LaTeX editor for academic writing and publishing
Stirling-PDF
Locally hosted web app for merging, splitting, converting, and OCR-ing PDFs